drift criteria as long as this diaphragm deflection amount does not
exceed the permissible deflection of the attached elements, so
therefore I don't think it is contradictory.
WH
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 2:18 PM, <ECVAl3@aol.com> wrote:
> I'm a bit confused. Could someone clarify this for me, please.
>
> The IBC Section 2305.2.1 states: "Wood diaphragms are permitted to be used
> to resist horizontal forces
> provided the deflection in the plane of the diaphragm, as determined by
> calculations..., does not exceed the permissible deflection of attached
> distributing or resisting elements..."
>
> But the ASCE Section 12.3.1.3 Calculated Flexible Diaphragm Condition,
> states: "Diaphragms...are permitted to be idealized as flexible where the
> computed maximum in-plane deflection..is more than 2 times the average story
> drift of adjoining vertical elements of the seismic force-resisting
> system..."
>
> Are these contradictory requirements or am I reading them wrong?
>
> S.Macie. P.E.
> SLO, CA
>
>
> ________________________________
> Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best 2008.
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*
http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********